I didn’t say that “the teachers” (by which I assume you mean the union) rejected the findings of fact. On the contrary, one of the links that I included in my blog post contains a letter from the union clearly stating that the school board rejected the findings of fact.

Any teacher in Ogden and/or the union itself can go to the district to give them their input about the contract that they’ve been given. But just like the teacher’s have that right to give their input, the district has the right to choose whether or not to accept it. They are the employer, and that is their prerogative. When Matt says that he negotiated his salary as a fast-food worker, that doesn’t mean that he told the restaurant what he wanted and they just gave it to him. It means he gave his input to his employer, the employer chose to either to change or not change the contract based on that input, and Matt accepted the result.

You’re really hung up on the single fact that the school district rejected the findings of fact. But the reality is that the fact-finding process was only one part of a bigger, failed negotiation process. If it’s relevant that the school district rejecting the findings of fact, it’s equally relevant that the OEA refused to agree to the district’s original contract offer, which led them to request fact-finding in the first place. It was all part of a larger, failed collective bargaining process in which both sides share responsibility.

The OEA was intimately involved in all steps of the failed collective bargaining negotiations – no one disputes this fact. That is why they are partly responsible for the failed negotiations, which is what I argued. You simply can’t credibly argue that only one side or the other is at fault. That’s like the two parties in D.C. arguing that the “only reason” we haven’t reached a debt deal is because of the other side. If they were both at the table, they are both responsible for the result, not just one or the other. The same is true of recent years’ Ogden teacher contract negotiations.

To your second point, your description of my reasoning is inaccurate. I haven’t argued that the association shouldn’t represent teachers because of teacher’s individual views. I have argued that going around the union does not equate with cutting teachers out of the process. With the assumptions underlying your thinking (“the OEA is the teachers in Ogden”), it is probably impossible for you to agree with me on this issue. We may simply have to agree to disagree on this one.

Matt provides a good response to your last point. The only thing I’d add is to dispute your belief that collective bargaining has served Utah school districts well for decades. Collective bargaining in Utah has produced some of the lowest teacher salaries in the nation and has produced a pay system that has little connection to improved student outcomes. I don’t know how you can equate that with being served well by collective bargaining.

This is not about pay. It is about being asked to sign a contract which you have had no input. Even in the private sector, negotiation still means both sides have input. You clearly stated that “even as a fast-food worker during high school I negotiated my own salary with the owner.”

The Board of Education rejected former Utah Supreme Court Judge, Michael Zimmerman’s findings of fact. The Ogden Education Association accepted his findings. Those are the facts.

Please supply the facts as they exist in this case, not what you think are the facts but the truth.

The OEA followed State law completely through their negotiation process.  The board rejected the fact finders findings in May.  OEA accepted them completely.  I don’t see how this is a means that their presence at the table resulted in the outcome that has happened. 

Your reasoning that the association should represent teachers because some teachers may have different viewpoints is flawed.  This type of representation happens all the time.  One example is in government.  Surely you have been represented at some point by a elected official with whom you didn’t agree with all of the time.  Did this mean he or she shouldn’t be your representative?  Generally speaking the goal of an association is to represent the “good of the order.”  If the members don’t like what their officers are doing, they can vote in different ones, they can run for office themselves, or vote with their membership.  Ogden members seem to be reasonably content based on their high percentage of voluntary membership.

The association does not have any inherent views unto itself.  Any views come from the members.  The OEA is the teachers in Ogden.  They govern it.  So to say that “many individual teachers have different interests and different views than the union as an organization,” is not true.  Yes, there are always divergent opinions within any organization but to imply that the union is way out of line from the rank and file is not true. 

Negotiating individually with every teacher in the state would be a process that would be too onerous to ever be implemented.  Collaborative negotiating between school boards and teacher representatives has served our districts well for many decades.  In spite of politically charged I think it can continue to serve us well into the future.

To my knowledge, this is how just about every other government employee and employee in the private sector in Utah negotiates his/her employment. Even as a fast-food worker during high school I negotiated my own salary with the owner. Of course, a standard contract is often already in place, but most everyone is able to negotiate his/her salary, and, in many cases, benefits, within that general agreement based on his/her qualifications. Even professional athletes who are unionized have a standard collective bargaining agreement but sign individual contracts with team owners. And these contracts are often multi-year agreements, which makes the process that much more practical.

Individual contracts with teachers would be simple to create. Just do what everyone else does.